We have a number of petitions to consider. Petition PE462, from Mrs Margie Currie, PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, and PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, all relate to Scottish Natural Heritage's consultation procedures.It is clear that, at this stage in the parliamentary session, we are not in a position to carry out any substantial work on the petitions. The committee faces a choice. One option is to refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee so that they can be passed on to our successor committee after the election. The other option is to conclude consideration of the petitions at this stage, on the basis that there is a strong likelihood that, early in the next session, there will be an opportunity for the issues to be addressed as part of the scrutiny of a nature conservation bill, which has a high chance of being introduced in that session. I look to members for their views about which of those options—or any other option—they wish to adopt.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Bristow Muldoon Lab 6
- Robin Harper Green 3
- John Scott Con 3
- Bruce Crawford SNP 2
- Maureen Macmillan Lab 1
The record
15 contributionsAre the options mutually exclusive? Would it not be better to be on the safe side and refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee? That would mean that they would at least be sent to our successor committee for discussion if, for any reason, the nature conservation bill were delayed for another six months to a year. At this stage, we simply do not know what the new Administration's priorities will be or, indeed, who the new Administration will be. Would it not therefore be safer to refer the petitions to the Public Petitions Committee so that it could refer them back to our successor committee at the beginning of the next session?
That would be a perfectly acceptable position for us to adopt.
I agree with Robin Harper. I know that there is often local tension between SNH and communities. The Executive is saying that it acknowledges the need for greater transparency and wider consultation. It wants to involve a broader range of stakeholders, including local communities. As Robin Harper said, we want to ensure that, if the bill is delayed for any reason—and we know that bills can be delayed—something happens to alleviate any tensions that may arise.
I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I believe that imposition of the designations should be delayed until the bill is introduced. One of the recommendations, which is to be found at paragraph 15 of the clerk's paper, is for a review of SNH's consultation procedures and consideration of whether an appeals procedure should be put in place to examine the scientific validity of SNH's claims. I believe that such a review is vital. I reiterate my view that the designations should not be imposed until the proposed nature conservation bill is introduced or a review of SNH has been undertaken.
My opinion is that the committee could not legitimately take that position without having studied the issue in considerably more detail. It would not be appropriate for the committee to draw such a conclusion on the basis of absolutely no evidence. I do not favour that approach, although I will be guided by the views of other members.
John Scott's second point was about a review of SNH's procedures. I say to him that, as part of the bill procedure, it is inevitable that the successor Transport and the Environment Committee will take evidence from witnesses. I am certain that any proposals will generate considerable comment not only from SNH, but from the various bodies throughout Scotland who feel aggrieved by SNH's actions. As part of the bill scrutiny process, witnesses will come before our successor committee to express their concerns about the way in which SNH has dealt with sites of special scientific interest and other designations and the way in which SNH has allowed communities to participate. Even if witnesses did not want to raise those issues, I would want them to be put on the table; we need to prise out that information.It is inevitable that the proposed bill will set out how SNH should go about its business in future and perhaps what guidance the Executive should give. John Scott's concern is whether we should do something now or whether a future Transport and the Environment Committee should consider the issue as part of a bill process. I believe that the committee cannot start to take decisions until we have had an opportunity to investigate the matter.
I would like to record my fundamental disagreement with John Scott's second point, which would be an unsafe recommendation for the committee to make. It would prejudge SNH before we have even taken evidence. On the balance of the evidence that I have read so far, in the majority of cases there is good justification for the creation of the SSSIs.
I do not dispute the justification for the creation of the SSSIs and I am not against their creation. However, the petitioners need a response to their petitions and we should not write them off, saying that it is bad luck that the petitions arrived at this point. Members may say that we lack the powers to make a difference and that we have to wait for new legislation. In the meantime, however, the designations will be imposed on the petitioners. The designations should be postponed until the bill is introduced or a review of SNH is undertaken. The petitioners have given evidence to this committee and to the Public Petitions Committee and their views must be taken into account.
The consensus seems to be that we should refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee so that they can be considered after the election. I recognise that John Scott wishes to go further, but I do not hear anyone else agreeing with him. We will refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee. After the election, our successor committee will take account of the issues that the petitions raise when it considers the proposed nature conservation bill.
We should make it clear that that is why we are referring the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee. If the nature conservation bill is delayed for any reason, our successor committee should reconsider the petitions.
We should add one small caveat. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which this would happen, but if for whatever reason a nature conservation bill does not arrive on the table, we will need to come back to the petitions and take on board the points that the petitioners have made.
I accept that. That can be noted.
We all agree that the system needs greater flexibility, as is noted in the clerk's paper. We hope that the nature conservation bill will deal with the issue but, if it does not, our successor committee will, as Bruce Crawford rightly said, have to deal with that situation.
Indeed. Is it agreed that we refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 18 Mar 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Tuesday 18 March 2003 (Morning) Committee business · 2
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 15
- Petitions Petitions · 17
- Railways and Transport Safety Bill Bill debate · 18
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 2
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.